The Wi-Fi alliance releases WPA3 which promises better security and simplified Wi-Fi configurations

[captain_to_fire]

Source: Wi-Fi Alliance

 

Quote

 

Las Vegas, NV – January 8, 2018 – Wi-Fi Alliance® introduces enhancements and new features for Wi-Fi Protected Access®, the essential family of Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ security technologies for more than a decade. Wi-Fi Alliance is launching configuration, authentication, and encryption enhancements across its portfolio to ensure Wi-Fi CERTIFIED devices continue to implement state of the art security protections.

 

Building on the widespread adoption and success of WPA2, Wi-Fi Alliance will also deliver a suite of features to simplify Wi-Fi security configuration for users and service providers, while enhancing Wi-Fi network security protections. Four new capabilities for personal and enterprise Wi-Fi networks will emerge in 2018 as part of Wi-Fi CERTIFIED WPA3™. Two of the features will deliver robust protections even when users choose passwords that fall short of typical complexity recommendations, and will simplify the process of configuring security for devices that have limited or no display interface. Another feature will strengthen user privacy in open networks through individualized data encryption. Finally, a 192-bit security suite, aligned with the Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA) Suite from the Committee on National Security Systems, will further protect Wi-Fi networks with higher security requirements such as government, defense, and industrial.

So say goodbye to KRACK vulnerability with WPA3. Current WPA2 protocol only uses 128-bit encryption whereas this one uses 192-bit which means much more difficult to brute force. Aside from a higher encryption block, the alliance promises simplified configurations as well. I don't know when will the likes of Asus, Google, and makers of networking stuff release a refresh to their line which will replace WPA2 with WPA3. Unfortunately at the moment there are no technical specifications posted. 

 

If security is concerned, why is it WPA still doesn't implement perfect forward secrecy which makes past and future sessions secrprotected even if the current encryption keys for the present session was stolen. That could improve security and I'm sure someone in the future will find holes and vulnerabilities with WPA3. I bet consumers would be the first ones to buy routers with WPA3, many if not all corporations have the tendency to slack off when it comes to cyber security if it requires so much money to replace equipment that has been running fine for years and can cost thousands of dollars.

Edited January 9, 2018 by hey_yo_

[Mira Yurizaki]

An increase of 64-bits of entropy seems kind of wah. Is 256-bit encryption too hard for these routers or something?

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

An increase of 64-bits of entropy seems kind of wah. Is 256-bit encryption too hard for these routers or something?

Yeah. I also would like to know if perfect forward secrecy is hard to add for the wifi alliance. Maybe with WPA4 we'll get 256-bit encryption and perfect forward secrecy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

Yeah. I also would like to know if perfect forward secrecy is hard to add for the wifi alliance. Maybe with WPA4 we'll get 256-bit encryption and perfect forward secrecy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yay for planned obsolescence?

[jagdtigger]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

An increase of 64-bits of entropy seems kind of wah. Is 256-bit encryption too hard for these routers or something?

Wanna bet those bastards(manufacturers) doing the encryption in CPU and no HW acceleration? (/OFF your previous avatar was better )

 

6 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Yay for planned obsolescence?

Or better yet Openwrt/DDWRT...

Edited January 9, 2018 by jagdtigger

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Yay for planned obsolescence?

Since a lot of routers got their security patch for KRACK, I'll probably keep my router with WPA2 and I think most people will keep their WPA2 routers for a few more years including big corporations. But I'm sure routers sold in mid 2018 will most likely use WPA3 by default.

Edited January 9, 2018 by hey_yo_

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Since a lot of routers got their security patch for KRACK, I'll probably keep my router with WPA2 and I think most people will keep their WPA2 routers for a few more years including big corporations. But I'm sure routers sold in mid 2018 will most likely use WPA3 by default.

Well good for them,  i have a archer c7 and a ap500 but no updates for them.

[captain_to_fire]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Wanna bet those bastards(manufacturers) doing the encryption in CPU and no HW acceleration? (/OFF your previous avatar was better )

Would you want manufacturers to add a Secure Enclave (Apple)/Secure Processing Unit (Qualcomm)-like chip in routers? That would be nice.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

Would you want manufacturers to add a Secure Enclave (Apple)/Secure Processing Unit (Qualcomm)-like chip in routers? That would be nice.

OFC not... Just the acceleration part without the black box . Anyway my next AP will be a business grade one thats for sure. Consumer solutions have way too short support cycle...

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Well good for them,  i have a archer c7 and a ap500 but no updates for them.

A VPN can protect you from KRACK. As indicated in this Windows Central article, only a handful of manufacturers released a patch for KRACK although that might have changed at the moment.

 

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Would you want manufacturers to add a Secure Enclave (Apple)/Secure Processing Unit (Qualcomm)-like chip in routers? That would be nice.

I wouldn't mind a router running on a Snapdragon 835 with 8GB of ram and 32GB of storage, with WRT as the OS! Maybe 2 USB 3.1gen1 ports. That would be pretty 'nanners! 

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Just the acceleration part without the black box

Most ARM SoCs already does hardware accelerated encryption. The common ones used by routers I think is the ARM Cortex-A9 which according to ARM's website has "TrustZone security technology" which I think is the one handling crypto acceleration as well.

 

 

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I wouldn't mind a router running on a Snapdragon 835 with 8GB of ram and 32GB of storage, with WRT as the OS! Maybe 2 USB 3.1gen1 ports. That would be pretty 'nanners! 

8GB of RAM on a router? Wut? IS DD-WRT even that resource hungry? 

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

8GB of RAM on a router? Wut? IS DD-WRT even that resource hungry? 

Nah. But think about all the crazy stuff you could run off your router then! Minecraft server? Video transcription server?

[TVwazhere]

RIP @GoodBytes

[captain_to_fire]

3 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

RIP @GoodBytes

 

Oh it was a repost. Just saw it now. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by hey_yo_

[Tracer]

When am I going to start seeing these at Best Buy, though?

[Matu20]

Networking tech has always been my weakspot, is this awesome?

[jagdtigger]

15 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Most ARM SoCs already does hardware accelerated encryption. The common ones used by routers I think is the ARM Cortex-A9 which according to ARM's website has "TrustZone security technology" which I think is the one handling crypto acceleration as well.

 

Spoiler

 

Great, on more gaping hole on my network...

 

19 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I wouldn't mind a router running on a Snapdragon 835 with 8GB of ram and 32GB of storage, with WRT as the OS! Maybe 2 USB 3.1gen1 ports. That would be pretty 'nanners! 

Build a pfsense box?

Edited January 9, 2018 by jagdtigger

[NumLock21]

36 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

An increase of 64-bits of entropy seems kind of wah. Is 256-bit encryption too hard for these routers or something?

Got to go up in increments so to sell more products!

[Zodiark1593]

*still has network gear from 2007*

[Valentyn]

 

Finally! Looking forward to even better security.

[2FA]

5 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

An increase of 64-bits of entropy seems kind of wah. Is 256-bit encryption too hard for these routers or something?

192 bit is perfectly acceptable, even with shortcuts AES-128 is still outside of brute force capability for the next couple of decades.

[TopHatProductions115]

For anyone who is concerned about the bitness of the encryption used, perhaps this could help smooth things over?

 

• https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20/what-are-the-practical-differences-between-256-bit-192-bit-and-128-bit-aes-enc
• https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/14068/why-most-people-use-256-bit-encryption-instead-of-128-bit
• http://security-architect.com/does-size-matter-aes-128-bit-encryption-is-probably-good-enough/

Edited January 10, 2018 by TopHatProductions115
Added more sources to consider, considering encryption key length vs. potential benefits in security practice. examples based upon AES encryption algorithm.

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

If security is concerned, why is it WPA still doesn't implement perfect forward secrecy which makes past and future sessions secrprotected even if the current encryption keys for the present session was stolen.

Because WPA does not use asymmetrical encryption.

While using something like DH during the initial handshake could be used to strengthen against attacks (also enabling perfect forward secrecy), the biggest problem and weakness is the pre-shared key. While it is nice to have PFS, I don't really see a big need for it. It seems like a minor concern compared to MITM attacks (set up rogue AP, send DeAuth and bam, MITM'd) which DH and PFS doesn't protect against.

 

I think the biggest concern is performance though, and the same goes for all the people saying "why only 192 bit key length?"

Because while your phone and laptop might be powerful enough to do longer keys than that, it does have a negative impact on performance. WiFi is used in a lot of embedded devices too and for those, even a small increase in processing requirements can have a massive difference on performance.

 

Besides, going from 128 to 192 is a massive increase anyway. Every single bit added doubles the (theoretical) strength of the cipher. So a "small" 64 bit increase has made it 18446744073709551616 (18 quintillion) times more difficult to brute force.

It was already impossible to break in practice, and now it's kind of ridiculous (but probably easier to market).